mondelēz global llc “defendant”) · the product line contains substantially similar relevant...

1

Sheehan & Associates, P.C.

Spencer Sheehan

[email protected]

(516) 303-0552

United States District Court

Eastern District of New York 1:19-cv-02249

Charles Harris individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated

Plaintiff

- against - Complaint

Mondelēz Global LLC

Defendant

Plaintiff by attorneys alleges upon information and belief, except for allegations pertaining

to plaintiff, which are based on personal knowledge:

1. Mondelēz Global LLC (“defendant”) manufactures, processes, distributes, markets,

labels and sells chocolate sandwich cookies with crème filling known as Oreos (the “Products”).

2. The Product varieties include original, thin, dark chocolate, mint, peanut butter,

“mega stuf” (extra filling), reduced fat and seasonal and holiday flavors (i.e., “Winter,”

“Halloween”), among others.

3. The Products are available in various packaging formats such as packs of 2, cases,

standard size (14.3 oz or 405g) and family size.

4. The front labels proclaim “Milk’s Favorite Cookie,” “Oreo,” “Chocolate Sandwich

Cookies,” an Oreo splashed by fresh milk and “Always Made With Real Cocoa.”

Case 1:19-cv-02249 Document 1 Filed 04/17/19 of 17 PageID #: 1

2

5. The Product line contains substantially similar relevant representations, modified

only by the specific flavor and type (“thins,” “pistachio”).

6. All of the Products highlight certain ingredients or components on the front labels

through the statement “Always Made With Real Cocoa.”


3

7. According to a trade publication, “[M]ore consumers are looking for authenticity and

‘real’ ingredients in their foods, including sweet ingredients like real sugar” and cocoa.1

8. And survey data compiled by the International Dairy-Deli-Bakery Association

(IDDBA) shows a growing “number of Americans continue to avoid products made with processed

or artificial ingredients.”

9. Approximately two-thirds of consumers “noted that health, nutrition and making

better choices are factors in their purchasing decisions on indulgent items or desserts,” and “[H]alf

of shoppers look for ‘real’ ingredients.”2

10. Another recent study found “nearly three-quarters of U.S. consumers find it

important to recognize the ingredients in the products they buy,”3 confirming that “recognition of

ingredients to be one of the biggest drivers of product choice, with more than half of respondents

1 Beth Day, Indulgence driving innovation in baked foods, November 3, 2016 FoodBusinessNews.net,

https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/7110-indulgence-driving-innovation-in-baked-foods 2 Progressive Grocer, Bakery Connects Emotionally With Consumers, Drives Grocery Sales, April 8, 2019,

https://progressivegrocer.com/bakery-connects-emotionally-consumers-drives-grocery-sales 3https://www.snackandbakery.com/articles/88762-clean-label-snacks-and-bakery-move-from-novelty-to-mainstream


4

(52 percent) considering it to be an important factor.”4

11. This is not to say a “reasonable consumer” expects confections and sweets to be

healthy or nutrient-rich – they are by definition an indulgence and not consumed for their salutary

effects in the same way other foods might be.

12. But consumers expect and seek out those indulgent foods that let them enjoy a “guilty

pleasure” while taking comfort in other attributes of those products.5

13. Defendant has tapped into this consumer demand for “real ingredients” by promoting

the products as “always made with real cocoa.”

14. The Products’ representations are misleading because despite the front-label claims

of “real cocoa,” they do not contain this component in the amount, type and/or form which a

reasonable consumer would expect based on the claims.

15. The “Always Made with Real Cocoa” representation is false, misleading and

deceptive because the ingredient list discloses they contain “Cocoa (Processed with Alkali).”

4 https://www.foodinsiderjournal.com/clean-label/75-consumers-will-pay-extra-clean-label-ingredients 5Monica Watrous, The new pleasure paradigm, Food Business News, Oct. 4, 2017,

https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/10688-the-new-pleasure-paradigm (“To tap into today’s pleasure

principles, it is critical to move beyond the temporary “high” often associated with pleasure and focus on real

ingredients”).


5

Ingredients: Unbleached Enriched

Flour (Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced

Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate {Vitamin

B1}, Riboflavin {Vitamin B2}, Folic

Acid), Sugar, Palm and/or Canola Oil,

Cocoa (Processed with Alkali), High

Fructose Corn Syrup, Leavening

(Baking Soda and/or Calcium

Phosphate), Salt, Soy Lecithin,

Chocolate, Artificial Flavor.

16. Cocoa powder (“cocoa”) is the “core of a chocolate's flavor, without any extra fat,

sugar, or milk to get in the way.”

17. Cocoa powder results from crushing the edible portions of the cocoa bean – “nibs” –

into a fine paste, releasing and melting the nibs’ fat content (cocoa butter).

18. The combination of crushed, ground nibs and cocoa butter produces chocolate liquor.

19. The chocolate liquor is pressed between hydraulic plates to form hard-cocoa “press

cakes” and the excess cocoa butter is removed.

20. The cocoa cakes are grated into fine powders.

21. The types of powders produced are based on the amount of cocoa butter, or fat,

remaining in the powder: high or “breakfast cocoa” (22% +), medium or “cocoa” (10-12%) and

lowfat cocoa (less than 10%).


6

22. The cocoa powder can be further treated through alkalization (“Dutch-process” or

alkalized) or used in its non-alkalized state.

23. The use and presence of alkalis reduces the acidity of cocoa powder, giving it a

noticeably darker hue associated with the Products but detracting from the “real cocoa” taste.

Non-Alkalized Alkalized

24. The claim of “always made real cocoa” is intended to differentiate the cocoa in the

Products from other cocoa ingredients bearing the standard cocoa designation, i.e., “cocoa” or

“cocoa processed with alkali,” and implies the cocoa present in the Products is nutritionally and

organoleptically superior.6

25. Because cocoa is a commonly used and valued product, consumers have certain

expectations based on experience when it comes to how “cocoa” is declared on a label.

26. No reasonable consumer would expect the cocoa in the Products to have been made

with and contain alkalis because “real,” in modifying the word “cocoa,” represents the cocoa

powder is included in its most simplified form.

27. According to Nielsen market research, a majority of consumers “say that when it

comes to ingredient trends, a back-to-basics mind-set, focused on simple ingredients and fewer

6 21 C.F.R. §130.11 Label designations of ingredients for standardized foods.


7

artificial or processed foods, is a priority.”7

28. It is false, deceptive and misleading to conspicuously promote “real cocoa” without

any reference to the presence and use of alkalis either preceding or following because “real cocoa”

without any modifying terms implies the absence of artificial ingredients in the cocoa.

29. The Products’ use of the optional alkali ingredients significantly distinguishes its

cocoa component from cocoa powder which does not contain alkali.

30. The presence or absence of alkalis effect the taste and color of the cocoa powder to

such an extent that they are a characterizing feature and effect whether a product that promotes the

presence of cocoa will be purchased.

31. Though it may be duplicative and unnecessary to indicate the presence of all optional

ingredients used in standardized foods wherever the affected ingredient is declared, other than the

ingredient list, this is not the case where an optional ingredient (alkali) is characterizing towards

the affected ingredient (cocoa).

32. The representation “real cocoa” is false, deceptive and misleading because

consumers expect “real cocoa” to indicate a higher quality cocoa than had the ingredient merely

been accurately identified as “cocoa,” (minus the descriptor “real”), the term for cocoa between

10 and 22 percent fat.

33. By misrepresenting medium fat cocoa as “real cocoa,” consumers will expect the

cocoa powder component to be nutritionally and organoleptically superior than it actually is.

34. Such a type of higher fat cocoa – above 22 percent – is referred to as breakfast cocoa,

7 Reaching for Real Ingredients: Avoiding the Artificial, Nielsen, CPG, FMCG & Retail, Sept. 6, 2016

https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/reaching-for-real-ingredients-avoiding-the-artificial.html


8

which has a more intense “chocolate-y” flavor.

35. The emphasis on “milk” – “milk’s favorite cookie” – reinforces the expectation that

the cocoa contained in the Products will not contain nor be processed with artificial, non-cocoa

ingredients, because reasonable consumers are familiar with milk being perhaps nature’s simplest

and original food, unprocessed and pure.

36. The Products contain other representations which are misleading and deceptive.

37. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, defendant sold the Products at a

premium price – no less than $4.99 per 14.1 oz, excluding tax – compared to other similar products

which are represented in a non-misleading way.

Jurisdiction and Venue

38. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

39. Upon information and belief, the aggregate amount in controversy is more than

$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.

40. This court has personal jurisdiction over defendant because it conducts and transacts

business, contracts to supply and supplies goods within New York.

41. Venue is proper because plaintiff and many class members reside in this District and

defendant does business in this District and State.

42. A substantial part of events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this

District.

Parties

43. Plaintiff is a citizen of Kings County, New York.

44. John and Jane Doe plaintiffs are citizens of the other 49 states.


9

45. Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with co-principal places of

business in Deerfield, Illinois and East Hanover, New Jersey and upon information and belief, no

member is a citizen of New York.

46. During the class period, plaintiffs purchased one or more Products for personal

consumption with the representations described herein, for no less than the price indicated, supra,

excluding tax, within their districts and/or states.

47. Plaintiff paid this premium because prior to purchase, plaintiff saw and relied on the

misleading representations.

48. Plaintiff would consider purchasing the Products again if there were assurances that

the Products’ representations were no longer misleading.

Class Allegations

49. The classes consist of all consumers in the following states: all, New York who

purchased any Products subject to the actionable representations during the statutes of limitation.

50. A class action is superior to other methods for fair and efficient adjudication.

51. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members, even if permitted, is

impracticable, as there are likely hundreds of thousands of members.

52. Common questions of law or fact predominate and include whether the

representations were likely to deceive reasonable consumers and if plaintiff(s) and class members

are entitled to damages.

53. Plaintiff’s claims and the basis for relief are typical to other members because all

were subjected to the same representations.

54. Plaintiff(s) is/are an adequate representative because his/her/their interests do not


10

conflict with other members.

55. No individual inquiry is necessary since the focus is only on defendant’s practices

and the class is definable and ascertainable.

56. Individual actions would risk inconsistent results, be repetitive and are impractical

to justify, as the claims are modest.

57. Plaintiff(s) counsel is competent and experienced in complex class action litigation

and intends to adequately and fairly protect class members’ interests.

58. Plaintiff(s) seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the practices continue.

New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 & 350

and Consumer Protection Statutes of Other States and Territories

59. Plaintiff and John and Jane Doe plaintiffs, representing the 49 other states where they

reside and purchased the Products, incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs and assert

causes of action under the consumer protection statutes of all 50 states.

a. Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ala. Code § 8-19-1, et. seq.;

b. Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Ak. Code § 45.50.471, et.

seq.;

c. Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code § 4-88-101, et. seq.;

d. California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq. and Unfair

Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code §§ 17200- 17210 et. seq.;

e. Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo Rev. Stat § 6-1-101, et. seq.;

f. Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen Stat § 42-110a, et. seq.;

g. Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. Code § 2511, et. seq.;

h. District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code §§ 28-3901, et. seq.;


11

i. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices, Act Florida Statutes§ 501.201, et. seq.;

j. Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, §10-1-390 et. seq.;

k. Hawaii Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 480 1, et. seq. and

Hawaii Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Hawaii Revised Statute § 481A-1, et. seq.;

l. Idaho Consumer Protection Act, Idaho Code § 48-601, et. seq.;

m. Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 505/1, et. seq.;

n. Kansas Consumer Protection Act, Kan. Stat. Ann §§ 50 626, et. seq.;

o. Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 367.110, et. seq., and the

Kentucky Unfair Trade Practices Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann § 365.020, et. seq.;

p. Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§

51:1401, et. seq.;

q. Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, 5 Me. Rev. Stat. § 205A, et. seq., and Maine Uniform

Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 10, § 1211, et. seq.;

r. Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93A;

s. Michigan Consumer Protection Act, §§ 445.901, et. seq.;

t. Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat §§ 325F.68, et. seq.; and

Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn Stat. § 325D.43, et. seq.;

u. Mississippi Consumer Protection Act, Miss. Code An. §§ 75-24-1, et. seq.;

v. Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010, et. seq.;

w. Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Mont. Code § 30-14-101,

et. seq.;

x. Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, neb. Rev. Stat. § 59 1601 et. seq., and the Nebraska


12

Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-301, et. seq.;

y. Nevada Trade Regulation and Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598.0903, et. seq.;

z. New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 358-A:1, et. seq.;

aa. New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8 1, et. seq.;

bb. New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, N.M. Sta. Ann. §§ 57 12 1, et. seq.;

cc. North Dakota Consumer Fraud Act, N.D. Cent. Code §§ 51 15 01, et. seq.;

dd. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1345.02 and 1345.03; Ohio Admin. Code §§ 109;

ee. Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, Okla. Stat. 15 § 751, et. seq.;

ff. Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act, Ore. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(e) & (g);

gg. Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-

13.1-1 et. seq.;

hh. South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code Law § 39-5-10, et. seq.;

ii. South Dakota’s Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, S.D. Codified

Laws §§ 37 24 1, et. seq.;

jj. Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101 et. seq.;

kk. Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 9, § 2451, et. seq.;

ll. Washington Consumer Fraud Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86/0101, et. seq.;

mm. West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, West Virginia Code § 46A-6-101,

et. seq.;

nn. Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Wis. Stat. §§ 100.18, et. seq.


13

60. Defendant’s representations and omissions are false, unfair, deceptive and

misleading and are not unique to the parties and have a broader impact on the public.

61. Defendant’s acts, practices, advertising, labeling, packaging, representations and

omissions are not unique to the parties and have a broader impact on the public.

62. Plaintiff desired to purchase products which were as described by defendant and

expected by reasonable consumers, given the product type.

63. The representations and omissions were relied on by plaintiff and class members,

who paid more than they would have, causing damages.

Negligent Misrepresentation

64. Plaintiff incorporates by references all preceding paragraphs.

65. Defendant misrepresented the substantive, health, quality and nutritional attributes

of the Products’ composition.

66. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive labeling of the

Products and knew or should have known same were false or misleading.

67. This duty is based on defendant’s position as an entity which has held itself out as

having special knowledge in the production, service and/or sale of the product type.

68. Defendant negligently misrepresented and/or negligently omitted material facts.

69. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on these negligent misrepresentations and

omissions, which served to induce and did induce, the purchase of the Products.

70. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Products or paid as much

if the true facts had been known, thereby suffering damages.

Breach of Express Warranty and Implied Warranty of Merchantability


14


72. Defendant manufactures and sells products which contain almonds.

73. The Products warranted to plaintiff and class members that they possessed

substantive, functional, nutritional, compositional, organoleptic, sensory, physical and other

attributes which they did not.

74. Plaintiff desired to purchase products which were as described by defendant – made

with cocoa in its most basic form.

75. Defendant sells cookies with “real cocoa” ingredients, purporting to be the ingredient

type in its most basic form available such that it can be functionally included in the Products.

76. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide a non-deceptive description of the

Products and knew or should have known same were false or misleading.

77. This duty is based, in part, on defendant’s position as one of the largest users of cocoa

in the world.

78. The Products did not conform to their affirmations of fact and promises, wholly due

to defendant’s actions.

79. The Products were not merchantable in their final sale form.

80. Plaintiff and class members relied on defendant’s claims, paying more than they

would have.

Fraud


82. Defendant’s purpose was to mislead consumers who seek products which feature

“real” ingredients – “real” referring to the ingredient in its least modified form such that it can be


15

incorporated into a final product.

83. Defendant’s intent was to secure economic advantage in the marketplace against

competitors.

84. Plaintiff and class members observed and relied on defendant’s claims, causing them

to pay more than they would have, entitling them to damages.

Unjust Enrichment


86. Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Products were not as

represented and expected, to the detriment and impoverishment of plaintiff and class members,

who seek restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits.

Jury Demand and Prayer for Relief

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment:

1. Declaring this a proper class action, certifying plaintiff(s) as representative and the

undersigned as counsel for the class;

2. Entering preliminary and permanent injunctive relief by directing defendant to correct such

practices to comply with the law;

3. Awarding monetary damages and interest, including treble and punitive damages, pursuant

to the common law, GBL and other statutory claims;

4. Awarding costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for plaintiff’s attorneys and

experts; and

5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.


16

Dated: April 17, 2019

Respectfully submitted,


/s/Spencer Sheehan

Spencer Sheehan (SS-8533)

505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311

Great Neck, NY 11021

(516) 303-0552

[email protected]

Joshua Levin-Epstein


1:19-cv-02249

United States District Court

Eastern District of New York

Charles Harris individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Plaintiff

- against -

Mondelēz Global LLC

Defendant

Complaint


505 Northern Blvd., #311

Great Neck, NY 11021

Tel: (516) 303-0052

Fax: (516) 234-7800

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of

New York State, certifies that, upon information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable

under the circumstances, the contentions contained in the annexed documents are not frivolous.

Dated: April 17, 2019

/s/ Spencer Sheehan

Spencer Sheehan


JS 44 (Rev. 0 /16) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes

Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)1 Original

Proceeding2 Removed from

State Court 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court4 Reinstated or

Reopened 5 Transferred from

Another District(specify)

6 MultidistrictLitigation -Transfer

8 Multidistrict Litigation -

Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONCite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBERDATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Charles Harris individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Kings

Sheehan & Associates, P.C., 505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311, GreatNeck, NY 11021, (516) 303-0552

Mondel z Global LLC

28 USC § 1332

False advertising

5,000,000.00

04/17/2019 /s/ Spencer Sheehan

Case 1:19-cv-02249 Document 1-1 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 18

Spencer Sheehan plaintiff

No

No

Yes

/s/ Spencer Sheehan


AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the

Eastern District of New York

)

)

Charles Harris individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated

)

)

)

)

) Plaintiff(s) )

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02249 )

Mondelēz Global LLC )

)

) Defendant(s) )

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Mondelēz Global LLC

C/O THE CORPORATION TRUST COMPANY

CORPORATION TRUST CENTER 1209 ORANGE ST

WILMINGTON DE 19801

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are

the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

(a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and

address are: Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., #311, Great Neck, NY 11021

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

DOUGLAS C. PALMER CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk


ClassAction.orgThis complaint is part of ClassAction.org's searchable class action lawsuit database and can be found in this post: Consumers Deceived by True Amount of ‘Real Cocoa’ in Oreos, Class Action Lawsuit Says [UPDATE]

https://www.classaction.org/news/consumers-deceived-by-true-amount-of-real-cocoa-in-oreos-class-action-lawsuit-says

https://www.classaction.org/news/consumers-deceived-by-true-amount-of-real-cocoa-in-oreos-class-action-lawsuit-says

mondelēz global llc “defendant”) · the product line contains substantially similar relevant...

Documents